45 comments:

P.S Posting films directed by neocons and scare-mongers much like the one you've quoted show how much credibility your Islamic Apologetics are beginning to display..... I would truly be amazed if Ally or Badawi even bat an eyelid at your challenge given the nature of the material on your website.

Let's examine your complaints here. (1) You complain that I draw attention to Sami's reasoning in his attack against James White. But aren't readers on this blog concerned about Sami's reasoning? Of course. So why not inform them?

(2) You also ask whether James can defend himself. If you'd gone to the link, you'd see that James did post a reply. But let's be consistent here for a moment. Can't Sami defend himself? Can't Shabir? Why do you keep commenting on their behalf and then throw a tantrum when I post something having to do with James?

(3) You complain that I posted a video about violence in Islam. The video lays down the facts, and also bends over backwards to claim that this has nothing to do with the majority of Muslims, who are peaceful. And yet you complain. So what part of "some Muslim extremists are violent" do you object to?

Yahya, you're starting to disturb me. Like so many other Muslims, you complain about virtually everything, whether it makes sense to complain or not. How about reserving your complaints for situations where complaining is called for? As things stand now, I know that I can write a post on any topic, and you'll be there moaning and wailing in the comment section.

Yes, I agree that there are evil Muslims (and you would even agree that Aisha and Ali were bad). The question is: Where does the violence come from? Does it come from something external to Islam? Or does it come from Islam itself? Reinterpretations aside, it clearly comes from Islam.

and no i wouldnt agree that aisha and ali are bad you are just enjoying to twist what i said because you utterly failed in that debate so all you have now is merely twisting what i say.

i said it was wrong for them to fight each other, then i said Muslims who killed each other were bad, clearly 2 parts in one sentence which you fail to see, the first part in reference to Aisha and Ali, and the second part which is against Muslims who killed each other.

number 2 i even said YOU SAID Muslims killed each other, so i am assuming thats even true so i said Muslims who kill Muslims are bad according to the prophet not in real specific reference to ANYBODY but just being a general statement against your statement that Muslims killed each other.

so keep on twisting what i say, infact ill write on article on this small issue just so everyone can clearly say your twisting ot at least mispresenting what i said.

as for the violence comming from Islam, again what would you like? ban Islam? you know you do.

Excellent! I'll do a post too. But for now, let's see whether I've misrepresented what you said. You said that Muslims who kill other Muslims are bad Muslims. Around 10,000 Muslims were slain when Aisha and Ali led their armies against one another. Who led the fighting? Aisha and Ali. Who commanded the killing of Muslims? Aisha and Ali. So were Aisha and Ali bad Muslims, according to your reasoning? Of course they were. Not only this, we also know that Abu Bakr was a bad Muslim according to you, for he declared that he would kill any Muslim who refused to pay him Zakat. So these were Muslims who simply disagreed with the leadership, and Abu Bakr declared that he would kill them, even though they were Muslims.

So the Mother of the Faithful, and two of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, were all bad, according to you, because they all commanded the killing of Muslims. And this, according to Muhammad, was the best generation of Muslims! Let me get this straight. The best generation of Muslims slaughtered each other on the battlefield? Should we be surprised when later generations kill people too? Should we be surprised when Sunnis and Shias kill each other?

This is going to be an awesome post.I'm not the one twisting your words, my friend. You are. You say things that will get you into trouble with your fellow Muslims, and then you try to talk your way out of it by distorting your own words, the same way you distort the words of the Bible, the Qur'an, and the Hadith.

But I have one quick question. Are you now saying that Aisha and Ali weren't bad Muslims? As I see it, you have two options here. You can either say that Aisha and Ali were bad, in which case I can't criticize Islam based on their actions. Or you can say that they weren't bad, in which case I can point to their actions as a reflection of Muhammad's teachings. If you choose the former, you're in trouble with your fellow Muslims. If you choose the latter, then the violent slaughter of one's fellow Muslims is consistent with Muhammad's teachings. Take your pick, my young friend.

First of all David, make sure you comment on Shamoun's dispicable behaviour as well since you decided to portray him as a victim of Sami.

Secondly, I wrote an article here Title of Link discussing your argument about Ali and Ayesha fighting each other and how you are unaware about certain crucial historical details regarding the event.

Thirdly, posting a video about evil Muslims is not evidence against Islam. I have a 17 minute video at home showing Christians in the American army committing atrocities in Iraq. It shows how they read the Bible and attend church in their camps, etc. Will that prove that Christianity is violent?

Fourthly, you support Israel. That is enough for any Muslim to know that you don't truly cherish peace. Or you are just sooo ignorant of what is actually going on.

Fifthly, James White should be condemned for posting that letter from the soldier speaking wrongly about the Muslims in such a stereotyped fashion. James White should have either rebuked him or corrected him nicely, but he didn't. Instead he says that he can't wait to meet him.

Sixthly, after we finish our book (God knows when that would happen, when you gonna send me your counter rebuttal? Its been 5 months), I challenge you to a detailed textual debate (either by book or for free to post on the internet) regarding violence in Islam. Trust me, your distortion of the commentaries on Surah 9:5 won't escape me.

(1) I don't recall trying to portray Sam as a victim. After all, he tends to demolish all of his opponents (especially you and Sami). What I showed is that Sami hates Christianity with so much blind passion that he isn't accurate in his criticisms.

(2) I'm fully aware of the historical details of the bloody war between Aisha and Ali. My point is that this was the best generation of Muslims (you won't dispute that), that they slaughtered one another on the battlefield over a disagreement (you can't dispute that), and that these were the people who knew Muhammad best (care to dispute that?). People like you and Sami think you know Islam better than Muhammad's closest companions. Your pride is amazing!

(3) You call the Muslims in these videos "evil." But who's closer to the teachings of Muhammad? Sami and his absurd reinterpretations of clear texts? Or the Muslims in this video who take Muhammad's commands seriously?

(4) If by "support Israel" you mean I believe it has a right to exist and defend itself, then yes, I support Israel. But how does this have anything to do with what we're talking about (Muslims slaughtering people who don't believe simply because they aren't Muslims)?

(5) James should have condemned the soldier for firsthand observations? Absurd. On a side note, are you consistent here? Do you condemn your fellow Muslims for their stereotypes of Christians (which happen to be far more inaccurate than the soldier's)?

(6) The last time we discussed the book, you said you would be busy for a while and wouldn't have time to work on it. If you're not busy now, you should have said something. But if we're going to do both debates now, we might want to discuss how we're going to proceed.

(7) You say I distorted the commentaries on Surah 9:5. Well, I don't recall going to any commentaries on Surah 9:5. I don't even recall using Surah 9:5 (though I could be wrong--please let me know). So I'm not sure how I misused commentaries that I never used concerning a verse that I didn't use. As for a debate, I accept. You should come to the U.S. with Sami in February. We should have a debate specifically on whether Muslims are called to fight people who reject Islam.

P.S. I find it absolutely amusing that Yahya and Bassam are defending Sami. Shias believe that Ali was sinless, and that speaking against him is reprehensible. Sami says that Ali was a bad Muslim (though he's now trying to wriggle out of what he said). And Yahya rushes to his defense!

Bassam is a (borderline) Salafi. Salafis hold that the first generation of Muslims was the best. Salafis look to Aisha as the Mother of the Faithful. Sami says she was a bad Muslim. And Bassam rushes to his defense!

Bassam knows that Muhammad commanded the killing of apostates, etc. Sami says that this only applied to spies. Bassam knows that Sami is misrepresenting Islam in order to make is sound more peaceful, and yet he continues to rush to his defense!

Sami is willing to radically reinterpret Muhammad's clear teachings. He's willing to throw Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim out the window. He has no respect for Ibn Kathir or al-Qurtubi. He's completely willing to throw all of his best scholars under the bus, along with Muhammad's teachings about Jihad. And Muslims rush to his aid!

I love this! Muslims have more love for their fellow Muslims than they have for their religion or for truth!

I think this proves something. Muslims aren't concerned so much about Islam. If they were, they would be correcting and condemning Sami's claims, and not defending him. The true goal of Muslims is to attack Christianity. Since Sami is doing that, who cares if he completely misrepresents Islam? Certainly not Yahya or Bassam.

“After all, he tends to demolish all of his opponents (especially you and Sami).”

David, I think you should take Jay Leno’s place when he quits his job next year because your pretty funny.

“I'm fully aware of the historical details of the bloody war between Aisha and Ali. My point is that this was the best generation of Muslims (you won't dispute that), that they slaughtered one another on the battlefield over a disagreement”

David, when I give you a link to an article that refutes you at least be interested enough to read it and not commit the same blunder. In your debate with Sami you gave the impression that Ayesha and Ali fought each other and they learned this from Islam.

In the article that I linked you to, it discusses exactly what happened. It states that Ayesha and Ali had no intention at all in fighting each other. They wanted to reconcile, not fight. But what happened was that few misguided people in the army attacked the other army in the middle of the night without the permission of their leader. This then provoked the fight.

So in reality the companions of the Prophet did not fight each other because of Islamic teachings, but because corrupt individuals provoked them to. THAT IS THE POINT, SO GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

“But who's closer to the teachings of Muhammad? Sami and his absurd reinterpretations of clear texts? Or the Muslims in this video who take Muhammad's commands seriously?”

Just to show you how ridiculous (not trying to insult you Dave, our relationship is friendly and you know that) you just sounded to me, let me rephrase your statement towards you:

“But who’s closer to the teachings of the Bible? You and your absurd reinterpretations of Christianity? Or the Christians in the video that I have at home who take the Bible’s teachings seriously?”

Loool, I mean have I presented an argument in the above statement?

“If by "support Israel" you mean I believe it has a right to exist and defend itself, then yes, I support Israel.”

Okay fine, but I think you support terrorism and your religion supports terrorism if it does justify Israel’s occupation because Israel is a terrorist state.

“But how does this have anything to do with what we're talking about (Muslims slaughtering people who don't believe simply because they aren't Muslims)?”

It has nothing to do with that. I just wanted to point out that you support terrorism, thus the irony of your accusations against Islam.

“James should have condemned the soldier for firsthand observations? Absurd.”

Observing what!???? You don’t observe Islam provoking terrorism. You observe terrorism, but assume or infer that it is Islam.

“On a side note, are you consistent here? Do you condemn your fellow Muslims for their stereotypes of Christians (which happen to be far more inaccurate than the soldier's)?”

Do you see me posting a letter from a Muslim on my website which insults all Christians and I say nothing about it? Didn’t you listen to my lecture on “Refuting Christianity” on my site AND HOW I DEDICATED A TIME IN MY LECTURE TO REFUTING MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT CHRISTIANITY? You could swear for a second if you didn’t know I was Muslim that I was a Christian apologist when I spoke.

“The last time we discussed the book, you said you would be busy for a while and wouldn't have time to work on it. If you're not busy now, you should have said something”

That doesn’t mean that you don’t do your part. I am always busy, but I will make time for the book. It is your turn now, so go for it.

“You should come to the U.S. with Sami in February. We should have a debate specifically on whether Muslims are called to fight people who reject Islam.”

Sami told me to come, I am still thinking it through but there is a 20% chance I will make it.

Plus, I prefer a detailed textual debate to make sure you don’t get away with anything. I want to ensure detailed paragraph by paragraph refutations of your arguments. Since violence in Islam is a hot topic, I want it to be textual giving enough time for both sides to give their strongest arguments.

“I love this! Muslims have more love for their fellow Muslims than they have for their religion or for truth!”

Show me where Sami said that Ali and Ayesha are bad Muslims, then I will condemn Sami. I listened to Sami and he didn’t say that. Sami said that Muslims who fight each other are bad Muslims. Sami didn’t apply that to Ali and Ayesha because Sami knows that Ali and Ayesha didn’t want to fight each other and that it was corrupt people that provoked the war. So Ali and Ayesha according to Islamic teachings are not sinful here because their actions are judged by their intentions and it wasn’t their intention to fight each other.

Secondly, yes I disagree with Yahya on his beliefs but we both have a common goal and that is to refute missionaries like you and James White who are ignorant of Islam and distort it. Islam doesn’t prohibit us to unite on a common goal as long as we maintain our beliefs and don’t compromise on them. I and Yahya are doing neither.

PLEASE WRITE THE ARTICLE AND QUIT TALKING ABOUT IT!!! I'm shocked at how often you say something that will get you into trouble, then use your misinterpretation skills (which you've built up by twisting the Qur'an, the Bible, etc.) to twist your own words!!! Again, please write the article and let me know when it's up.

There's no way out of this one, Sami. I brought up the bloodshed caused by Aisha and Ali to show that Muslims learned from Muhammad to settle their differences with violence. You responded that Muslims who fought other Muslims were bad Muslims. Who led the armies? Aisha and Ali! What was the context of your claim that Muslims who fight other Muslims are bad? It was meant as a response to my argument about Aisha and Ali!

And please try to argue that Aisha and Ali had nothing to do with the fight! Amazing deception! Do you really expect people to believe that Aisha and Ali both amassed large armies so that they could discuss things peacefully??? Nonsense! (But I suppose that if you think people will believe that the beatings Muslims give their wives are painless, you'll expect us to believe anything.) And do you mean that this battle, which raged for hours and left 10,000 Muslims in the bloody dust, was just an accident? Read your history, friend.

Again, please write the article showing where I've misrepresented you. You've made a serious charge. Now back it up so I can refute it.

Do you really think your arguments do well against Sam's responses? Oh, wait, I forgot that, in your book, no matter how absurd your response is, it qualifies as a complete refutation of your opponent.

You say that Aisha and Ali had no intention of fighting each other. Really? Is that why Aisha amassed a massive army? Is that why Ali didn't confront her until he had an even larger army? Is this normal in Islam? When two people want to discuss something peacefully, do they bring thousands of soldiers for kicks and giggles? You have very little respect for history, my friend (although you have more respect for history than Sami does. Sami looks at the data and says, "My will be done!" and "poof!"--everything changes to fit his view!)

I asked whether the Muslims who commit violence are following the teachings of Muhammad, and you tried to reverse the question by applying it to Christianity. But I would be happy to answer. Christians who commit violence in the name of Christianity are completely at odds with the teachings of Jesus. Can we say the same thing about Muslims who fight in the name of Islam, as they are commanded to do by Muhammad and the Qur'an? Don't pretend we're in the same boat here. We're not.

You said, "Show me where Sami said that Ali and Ayesha are bad Muslims, then I will condemn Sami." Deal! Let Sami post his article, and I will prove that I'm right. Then I expect you to keep your promise and condemn your friend.

Finally, you said, "yes I disagree with Yahya on his beliefs but we both have a common goal and that is to refute missionaries like you and James White who are ignorant of Islam and distort it." Now here's an amazing thing. Why would you unite with Muslims to refute missionaries who distort Islam? Are you saying that it's important to be accurate about Islam? If you recall, my objection was that Sami is misrepresenting Islam, and you know it. So let me see if I've got your position right: If a Muslim misrepresents Islam, it's okay; but if a Christian misrepresents Islam, you must unite with Muslims (even those who are in error) to overcome the Christians. Is that right?

I'll just conclude by saying that if Muhammad were to come back to life, and if James, Sam, and I were to lay our version of Islam on the table, your prophet would say, "Amen! That's exactly what I taught." Then, if you, Yahya, and Sami were to lay out your claims about Islam, Muhammad would say, "What in the world is this mess? Where did you get all of these ideas from? That's not what I said. You guys are going to burn in hell for twisting my message."

I can't believe you even want to go the route of Israel. That country is an awesome country who were willing to live in peace with their Arab neighbours. It was the Arab neighbours that declined and rejected peaceful co-existence with Jews, just as their prophet Mo did. And your fellow Muslims attacked the Jews in 1948, just as your peophet did in the 7th century. The situation is what it is because of your fellow Muslim's rejection of co-existence and now you guys want to put on your "my dog is dead" face because Israel (David) whooped Goliath (all the Muslim nations that attacked them) once again?

Sorry, friend, but I won't fall for it. Think about it, how things could have been different if Muslims actually made the right choice for once in 1400 years of history back in 1948 and accepted the right for the "infidel" Israel to exist. Think about how many Muslims in the Palestinian areas would have had a normal existence. But, alas, the "refugees" are denied access to the land of their fellow Muslims. As soon as they cross the border to Jordan or Egypt, they are thrown out on their heads again. Obviously the refugees are used to bite Israel. Because if that problem is solved, then there is no more reason to bicker about the Jewish state and Israel will finally have it's rest. And that is something the Muslim world just can't live with!

I support Israel with everything I have. He who touches Zion, touches the apple of Gods eye, as the prophet Zecheriah declares. And that part, my friend, is NOT corrupted!

Okay fine, but I think you support terrorism and your religion supports terrorism if it does justify Israel’s occupation because Israel is a terrorist state.

As someone once said: "Go to Tel Aviv in your Arab dress and put your prayer cloth somewhere on the street and pray facing Meccah and see who bothers you. Then go to Ramallah and put on your Kippah and stand at a busstop for 5 minutes, see if you live that long."

Who was the terrorist state again?

As I said in my rebuttal to Sami's claims in his debate with David: Muslims have no problem treating others like dirt and they can't be rebuked for it. But when people do the same to them, they are outraged and claim they have the right to fight Jihad because of "oppression".

"Observing what!???? You don’t observe Islam provoking terrorism. You observe terrorism, but assume or infer that it is Islam."

Basam,

I always wonder, why,

1) when a secular state from the west does something bad, it is always automatically linked to Christianity? (Remember, America isn't a Christian country, it's secular!)

2) when someone in the west does something bad then it's Christianity's fault according to Muslims, while that person has never justified his actions on the basis of a divine command from the Bible? yet...

3) when there are numerous muslims who, everytime they commit attrocities, they do so in the name of Qur'an, Allah, Muhammad and Islam, and they don't hide their motives, yet we are not to link these acts to Islam?

4) This becomes even more absurd, since the west condemns attrocities commited in it's name, but muslims make all kind of excuses not to condemn the despicable behaviour of their fellow muslims, keeping silent and blaming America and Israel for everything THEY THEMSELVES do?

lol David you truly are funny to watch, only in your head alongside your few comrades do you think your arguments stand, but i hate to break it to you the majority of Muslims who watched our 3 debates are laughing at you because of how utterly hopeless you truly are, by simply repeating yourself over and over again without even replying back.

infact i take some of that back, i believe that even in your own head you know you have no arguments and have been refuted on everything, but you need to keep going anyway as you cant concead.

and btw you got lucky in our Christianity debate because i mis-read Luke, in the parable of Luke Jesus orders HIS FOLLOWERS TO KILL THE UNBELIEVERS.

:) so your main argument of ohhhhhh Christians arent commanded to violence just went out the window. :) see how hopeless and easy you are?

and just incase you want to pull a wool over our eyes i have Christian commentaries ready to demolish any personal interpretation you have that tries to say that no no the parable isnt referring to Jesus' second comming.

so expect an article on this too which will truly truly end your argument and meet your own demand. remember you said i need to do 2 things? show where Christians are commanded to violence? bingooooo we just did it!!!!!!!!

"P.S. I find it absolutely amusing that Yahya and Bassam are defending Sami. Shias believe that Ali was sinless, and that speaking against him is reprehensible. Sami says that Ali was a bad Muslim (though he's now trying to wriggle out of what he said). And Yahya rushes to his defense!"

LOL David, its amazing the things you learn from Shiachat and forums with young kids discussing the basic ABC of Islam and asking questions of fiqh.....However I'm glad you did finally learn some of my beliefs =)

As for Sami, I requested Sami to clarify what he meant before jumping to his defense, he never meant the distorted misrepresentation which you have decided to pass off as his view.

naki you make me laugh, your apologist David just served himself thanks to the parable of Luke.

as David said show me where Christians are commanded to commit violence= the parable of Luke, when Jesus comes back he will order you loving Christians to kill all his enemies. :) really i must thank you again David for serving your faith on a platter for all of us to barebque. :)

First: It's a parable!Second: It's about the coming judgment of God.Third: Yeshua will be the Judge in that coming judgement.Fourth: in the meanwhile, we arent to judge others, which means that we can't go "slaughter people".Fifth: Your Islamic hypocracy shows! Your God is extremely eager to throw people into his hellfire at "the Hour". And you believe that he has every right to do so, since he is the "creator". Yet, you call the God of the Bible a murderer when He executes judgment on the earth.

im so bad in debating and he wants me to quit that he also wants to have a written text debate with me and publish it! haha so funny.

naki do yourself a favor and follow your own advice which you gave to me, just remain silent because you really dont know what your on about, but i cant blame you as you follow a book written by confused people, hence it runs in the system.

The debate with David could have been settled in 2 minutes. Again, here is the Muslim hypocracy:

Christianity: What is the Greatest Commandment?To love YHWH with all your heart. The Second and equally important is to love your neighbour as yourself.

Along comes Islam:What is the Greatest commandment?Jihad for the sake of Allah. To fight the people untill they say that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is his messenger.

And you claim that Christianity is a violent religion? What do you think what the world would be like if all Christians would follow the Christian command?

And what would you think the world would look like if all Muslims world would follow the Muslim command?

What really got me ROFLMAO was your comment that Christianity was violent because it's non-retaliatory. And since allowing yourself to get hurt is against illegal (by what law anyways???), this proves that Christianity is violent!

This has to be on the top of dramatically flawed arguments of all times.

Check out this foolishness. He calls the Bible a book written by confused people. Last time I checked your prophet was demon posessed. Yeah, thats right, he was Satan's puppet!

He was going delusional, affected by black magic, thinking he had sex with his wives, when he had not done so.

Your prophet couldn't come up with a noble verse, even that was too much for him, so he bought a noble verse from the Talmud "for a miserable price", which is the most noble verse in the entirely confused book you call "holy".

And you call the Bible a confused book? If any book is confused, it is your Qur'an: scientifically, historically, religiously inconsistent with facts. And complete WITHOUT context!

for example: I can’t figure Surah 16:68-69 out. What drink comes from the body of the bee that is healing for man? Can you explain that for me?

"I'm eager to debate him, because he talks big all the time. He thiinks his arguments are so amazing, while he, of all muslim appologists, does the worst job."

Well not that I agree with your assessment, but to cut a long story short...So you want an easy-ride victory ?

Do you consider yourself to be on a basic level? because most Muslim Apologists wouldn't debate someone for an easy victory just to look good.

"I would place him in the same line as mr Taqiyah #1, Nadir Ahmed.

Sami is mr Taqiyah #2, but he's closing in quickly on Nadir."

An extremely felacious argument once again, Taqiyyah requires circular reasoning and can easily be thrown back at the christian. However its really upto you I guess, if you believe Sami is being deceptive or taking things out of context then rebuke him and correct him by all means, However please don't waste your effort with this Taqiyyah argument.

I'm not looking for an easy ride victory. I will debate any Muslims about Muhammad being foretold in the Bible. I issued the challenge to Osama Abdallah also. I even send him a sample of my rebuttals to his arguments on his website, completely analyzed from the Hebrew text. Never heard anything from him.

Sami doesn't want any of it either. He know better, but is stubborn as can be. He keeps claiming that the Qur'an is true? Well then put your money where your mouth is and accept the challenge to debate Muhammad prophecised in the Bible. If you don't want that, then throw away your Qur'an, since you can't build a case for Muhammad in the Bible and therefore the Qur'anic claim is moot!

I find it amusing, by the way that these apologists want nothing of debating Muhammad in the Bible.

Hiding behind the "bible is corrupt" excuse will not work here. You see, the Qur'an makes the claim that the Jews recognize Muhammad as they do their own sons. This means that they knew that Muhammad was known to them whenever they looked in their sacret texts they posessed AT THAT TIME!

Well, we happen to have the exact same texts today as the Jews jad back then. If that is the case, then I should open my Bible and read about Muhammad, don't I? According to the Qur'an, I can't miss the prophecies about Muhammad, even if I want to.

Well, then why the refusal to debate Muhammad in the Bible? You can even go and take a look for yourself: Where is Muhammad mentioned in the Bible? If you can't find him, then why does the Qur'an claim that the Jews recognized him as they did their own sons if it's all so obvious? If you can find him, well then point him out!

You appealed to the parable in Luke to show that Christians will be commanded to kill. "Case closed," you say. The amazing thing here is that I've been criticizing you for mishandling the Bible, and here you're doing exactly what I say!

If you check the parables, Jesus' "servants" who judge are the angels. He even tells us this in Matthew 13:39. And yet you proclaim your completely false statement, and say "case closed." So we only have two possibilities here. Either (1) you simply don't know the New Testament at all (in which case, why should we listen to what you're saying about the New Testament?), or (2) you do know what the New Testament teaches, but you're being deliberately deceptive (in which case, why should we believe anything you say?). So which is it, Sami? Are you ignorant or deceptive? It must be one or the other, because your claims, as usual, are completely false, and can be shown to be false by anyone who's so much as glanced at the Bible.

lol lol lol his believers are angels, David i like you, but that just made me laughhhhhhhhhhhhhh, even you dont believe that! everyone knows those believers mentioned in Luke are HUMANS, your giving your view, which isnt agreed upon by other scholars. sorry.

anyways, its late here, and thank you naki ive read all your posts and they made me drowsy, i wasnt tired before, but i am now after your comments. thank you so much naki, as they say in England i am nakkered! get it? naki, nakkered? muahahahaha

I really must admire you for having the patience to deal with the absurd apologetics being formulated by the Muslims you interact with. If I were doing it, I would need a whole team to cover me in prayer JUST to strengthen my patients enough.

...as for the comment about "serving Barbeque"...last time I checked Allah was the main man for BBQ :P.

He personally makes all the infidels "fuel for hellfire", and personally burns and tortures them there. Combine that with the fact that he "seals heart" and leads astray, and we see the picture of a deity that is the main man running an eternal BBQ that enjoys cooking up Infidel Surprise.

Both the videos Islam what the west needs to know and Obsession: Radical Islam's War against the West are a must watch for every person in the west. I am in western Europe since sometime now and its shocking to see the number of immigrant muslims in Europe. What is even more disturbing is how Europeans just in their effort to be politically correct and non offensive are turning a blind eye to the problems an Islamic dominated society posts.

Women in Islam

American Freedom Law Center

America

The Truth about CAIR

FAQ Page

On this website, we engage Muslims and the foundations of Islam without trying to be "PC". We feel honesty is better than disguised language. As you can read on our FAQ, this is out of love, not out of hatred. Thanks, and we're looking forward to seeing your comments!